Ask Prospero anything...thread

[Prospero]

And my view - let's have lunch. Your place or mine?

[Stavros]

“Experience teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men believe themselves free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined.” Spinoza

Discuss

An argument made redundant by Freud - the causes of actions may be unknown to the unconscious mind -if there is such a thing as some believe the concept of the unconscious to be meaningless- but can be revealed through the dialectics of therapy.

[martin48]

Though I might agree with Prospero's reference to Wittgenstein, I can't have any tuck with Stravos's Freud crap.

There is a trend to err on the side of determinism – we are defined by our genotype. What naturally concerns us all is that we are not the free agents we would like ourselves to be. However, we ought to worry less about the causes and more about effects. On any plausible view of the world, the aetiology of our behaviour will include causes that are beyond our control. So if anything can make a difference, it is not the existence of such causes, but rather the kind of effects they have. When it comes to free will, what matters is our cognitive phenotype, not its genotypic source. Ordinary responsible behaviour and diverse cognitive and behaviour pathologies that do involve diminished responsibility may both have genetic bases, so the fact of genetic determination, insofar as it is a fact, will not explain the contrast. Of course if you want to alter effects, you will want to look back to causes that may provide you with a handle. So the possibility of substantially increased powers of genetic intervention will give those concerned about human autonomy plenty to worry about. Genetic knowledge does not itself threaten free will, but what we do with that knowledge is another story.


Ah well, here we go again!

[Fancy fancy]

Who will be crowned the most intellectual tranny chaser?

[Prospero]

Who will be crowned the most intellectual tranny chaser?

why you of course, Fancy Fancy

[Stavros]

Though I might agree with Prospero's reference to Wittgenstein, I can't have any tuck with Stravos's Freud crap.

There is a trend to err on the side of determinism – we are defined by our genotype. What naturally concerns us all is that we are not the free agents we would like ourselves to be. However, we ought to worry less about the causes and more about effects. On any plausible view of the world, the aetiology of our behaviour will include causes that are beyond our control. So if anything can make a difference, it is not the existence of such causes, but rather the kind of effects they have. When it comes to free will, what matters is our cognitive phenotype, not its genotypic source. Ordinary responsible behaviour and diverse cognitive and behaviour pathologies that do involve diminished responsibility may both have genetic bases, so the fact of genetic determination, insofar as it is a fact, will not explain the contrast. Of course if you want to alter effects, you will want to look back to causes that may provide you with a handle. So the possibility of substantially increased powers of genetic intervention will give those concerned about human autonomy plenty to worry about. Genetic knowledge does not itself threaten free will, but what we do with that knowledge is another story.


Ah well, here we go again!

I don't understand the hostility people have to Freud, who was as interested in cause as in effect, not least because his clients presented him with problems that puzzled him until he believed he had found a way to unlock the truths that people conceal. Science is good with newts, electrons and rocks, but can it deal with the neuroses that so fascinated Freud that he embarked on the study of the structure of the mind? The Interpretation of Dreams was one of the most important books of the 20th Century. It is a pity Freud gets such a bad press, usually for the wrong reasons. His views on women are, I think, a mistake, and his development of the 'Oedipus complex' is simply wrong, although he suspected this at an early stage. Even if the answers he offers are contested, there is little doubt he opened up a vital stream of enquiry that has helped illuminate the human condition.

'Die anatomie ist das Schicksal' -Anatomy is destiny (The Dissolution of the Oedipus Complex, 1924) -is this not relevant to HungAngels?

[martin48]

Untestable - All Freud's theories are built upon their own internal logic which cannot be proved either way. Internally consistent, but externally unprovable.

Even if we know that someone had no father figure against whom to compete for his mother's affection, what does that tell us about his future behaviour?

Theory not based on a large sample of people, or tested under experimental conditions with control groups, etc. Freud's patients were largely wealthy hysterical Victorian middle-class women in Vienna in the late 1800s.

Freud invented many new terms, but rarely defined exactly what he meant.


Metaphysical - abstract throughout and not testable via empirical methods.
Personal projection of Freud's own life, fantasies and conflict with his own father (Oedipus Complex)?

Freud deals with the unconscious mind that he claims can only be understood through dreams, slips of the tongue, etc. But, do we really understand how the conscious mind itself works? Answer: No. Therefore, how can something that does not understand itself, begin to interpret what the unconscious mind generate.


(I never thought I would be having such heavy discussions on a tranny porn site)

[Prospero]

Intriguing remark at the tail end of your last post martin regarding the limited understanding we have of the conscious mind and the attempt we make, using a tool little understood, to try and plumb the depths of our unconscious. I recall some years ago many scientists declaring that understanding the nature of consciousness - particularly self-consciousness - was one of the very greatest scientific challenges we presently face.

[Stavros]

Untestable - All Freud's theories are built upon their own internal logic which cannot be proved either way. Internally consistent, but externally unprovable.

Even if we know that someone had no father figure against whom to compete for his mother's affection, what does that tell us about his future behaviour?

Theory not based on a large sample of people, or tested under experimental conditions with control groups, etc. Freud's patients were largely wealthy hysterical Victorian middle-class women in Vienna in the late 1800s.

Freud invented many new terms, but rarely defined exactly what he meant.


Metaphysical - abstract throughout and not testable via empirical methods.
Personal projection of Freud's own life, fantasies and conflict with his own father (Oedipus Complex)?

Freud deals with the unconscious mind that he claims can only be understood through dreams, slips of the tongue, etc. But, do we really understand how the conscious mind itself works? Answer: No. Therefore, how can something that does not understand itself, begin to interpret what the unconscious mind generate.


(I never thought I would be having such heavy discussions on a tranny porn site)

I agree that from the perspective of science Freud's psychology contains contradictions, but from the perspective of philosophy, sociology and the arts, his work asks for an analysis of human behaviour that is credible and fruitful. The so-called Oedipus Complex and Electra Complex I don't think are as important as his theory of neuroses and the sexual element in repression, and science has attempted to deal with depression and anxiety through pharmacology, and in extreme cases electro-convulsive therapy, now discredited, even though Carrie Mathieson gets blasted now and then. Science gets irritated with Freud because of its own limitations, yet scientists read novels, listen to music and appreciate the arts and must have a view on why some people, even in fiction, behave the way they do, and science falls short when attempting to explain the universal attachment of human beings to religious explanations of why we are here. By dismissing it as 'superstition' science cannot really offer any insight into religion, where Freud presents his psychology as 'a family romance' and in doing so places social relations as critical in the development of the self.

Many transgendered people have been born with an indeterminate set of genitals, or a different set of chromosomes to babies who are clearly either male or female, yet I also wonder how many transgendered people who have become transgendered later in life, because of events that happened in their childhood find therapy one way of unlocking these repressed memories that have shaped their definition of themselves. Or does science dismiss memory as fiction, much as Karl Popper dismissed history as being a set of dates and recorded events but otherwise having no meaning?
It is a pity that science diverged from philosophy, probably in the 17th century, both disciplines have suffered as a result.

[Stavros]

Intriguing remark at the tail end of your last post martin regarding the limited understanding we have of the conscious mind and the attempt we make, using a tool little understood, to try and plumb the depths of our unconscious. I recall some years ago many scientists declaring that understanding the nature of consciousness - particularly self-consciousness - was one of the very greatest scientific challenges we presently face.

But Prospero, does science have the tools to understand consciousness as something other than brain waves? As I said in my reply to Martin, science struggles to explain religious belief, even though it is hugely important to so many people. But I did hear two psychologists discussing the concept of the 'person' and agreeing they could not define it. But it may be that a person is someone taking on a role, rather than pure being, so is more fluid and harder to pin down. But how many films attempt to show why people are behaving as they do, as well as what they do, consciously or not -so why do some films make sense when others miss the mark? Curious.